Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.02 
    0.019210255 = product of:
  0.057630762 = sum of:
    0.057630762 = sum of:
      0.015658367 = weight(_text_:of in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015658367 = score(doc=2652,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.041972395 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041972395 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  2. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.02 
    0.015219486 = product of:
  0.045658458 = sum of:
    0.045658458 = sum of:
      0.010043699 = weight(_text_:of in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010043699 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.
    Date
    1. 8.2008 12:39:22
  3. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.01 
    0.013838528 = product of:
  0.04151558 = sum of:
    0.04151558 = sum of:
      0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0118366135 = score(doc=2650,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  4. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.01 
    0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  5. Braun, M.: Lesezeichen zum Stöbern : "Social bookmark"-Seiten setzen auf die Empfehlungen ihrer Nutzer (2007) 0.01 
    0.009492606 = product of:
  0.028477818 = sum of:
    0.028477818 = sum of:
      0.0047346456 = weight(_text_:of in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047346456 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.06910896 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    "Irgendwann ist es einfach zu viel Information. Einmal "Schokolade" bei Google eingeben und mal eben 9 870 000 Links zur Auswahl. "Pilgern - 800 000 Einträge. 21400 000 für "Hörbuch. Die Auswahl fällt schwer, und wer hat schon die Geduld, sich alle Seiten anzugucken. Am besten wäre es, irgendjemand könnte eine der, vielen Seiten empfehlen. Auf eben dieses Prinzip setzen immer mehr Internet-Seiten. Seiten wie www.mister-wong.de bestehen nur aus Empfehlungen von Nutzern für Nutzer. Immerhin vier empfehlen die Webseite zum Pralinenclub, acht Nutzer haben sich für www.theobroma-cacao.de ein Lesezeichen angelegt, beim Pilgern sind sich auch gleich einige Benutzer einig, welche Seite sie am liebsten zum Thema lesen und empfehlen. "Social bookmarks" - Lesezeichen, die man anderen zur Verfügung stellt - sind vor allem auf englischsprachigen Seiten zu finden. Mit Anbietern wie "Mister Wong" oder "Netselektor" können jetzt auch die Deutschen ihre Lieblingslesezeichen im Internet mit anderen teilen. "Bei den großen Suchmaschinen haben es gute Seiten oft schwer: Wenn sie nicht bei Yahoo oder Google nach der Suchanfrage ganz oben stehen, findet sie niemand", sagt "Mister Wong"Pressesprecher Christian Clawien. Für ihn ist das Konzept der "Social bookmarks" die ideale Alternative zur mechanischen Suchmaschine. Noch sind die Zahlen der Aktiven aber gering. 1,3 Millionen abgespeicherte Bookmarks verzeichnet "Mister Wong" seit der Gründung im März 2006. Vor allem Leute, die sowieso bereits einen guten Draht zum Internet haben, nutzten das Angebot, sagt Clawien. Langsam beginnt die Phase, wo Monetarisierung möglich ist." Langfristig soll auch Werbung auf der Seite erscheinen. Bei "www.netselektor.de", im November 2006 gegründet, sitzt zudem noch eine Redaktion vor dem Computer, die die abgelegten Lesezeichen der Nutzer durchforstet und die besten Empfehlungen noch mal als qualitativ hochwertig vorstellt. Nach und nach soll so in Zusammenarbeit mit den Usern ein "Best-of-Internet" entstehen. Natürlich nur mit den Internet-Juwelen, die einer Empfehlung würdig sind. Allerdings erreichen die "Social bookmark"-Seiten auch schnell ihre Grenzen: Nicht alle Stichworte bringen Ergebnisse, nicht immer sind die Vorlieben der Nutzer für Internet-Seiten nachvollziehbar, und noch reicht auch nicht die Anzahl der beteiligten Nutzer, um tatsächlich all die verborgenen Juwelen im riesigen weltweiten Netz zutage zu fördern. Originelles gibt es aber trotzdem schon jetzt - vom Karaoke Trainer bis zu www.dontclick.it", die Seite, die ohne Maus funktionieren soll."
    Date
    3. 5.1997 8:44:22
  6. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.01 
    0.0069250925 = product of:
  0.020775277 = sum of:
    0.020775277 = product of:
      0.041550554 = sum of:
        0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041550554 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    5. 1.2008 19:22:48
  7. Cope, J.: Librarianship as intellectual craft : the ethics of classification in the realms of leisure and waged labor (2012) 0.00 
    0.0044112457 = product of:
  0.013233736 = sum of:
    0.013233736 = product of:
      0.026467472 = sum of:
        0.026467472 = weight(_text_:of in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026467472 = score(doc=421,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper develops an ethical conception of library labor as an intellectual craft that can serve as an alternative to a deterministic discourse of technological transformation. In this paper, the author proposes a model of librarianship as an intellectual craft that can be used as an "ideal type" in comparison to recent transformations in the practice of librarianship. This paper then examines the rise of participatory classification in the realm of leisure in user-generated classification schemes (e.g., folksonomies) as a way of examining some of the difficult ethical questions that this ideal of intellectual craft poses when applied to contemporary conditions. Marx's concept of surplus value is used to examine how donated labor adds to the general knowledge. This paper concludes by advocating for the general expansion of leisure coupled with the promotion public institutions that support the craft of those who organize information in a broadly defined public interest. In an era of dramatic change, such a framework offers a positive ethical account of librarians and information professionals' labor that is not wholly dependent on a discourse of market exchange.
    Content
    Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_g.pdf.
  8. Huvila, I.: Aesthetic judgments in folksonomies as criteria for organising knowledge 0.00 
    0.004142815 = product of:
  0.012428444 = sum of:
    0.012428444 = product of:
      0.024856888 = sum of:
        0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 3540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024856888 = score(doc=3540,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 3540, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Principles, justifications and their subjective nature are central issues of knowledge organisation research and practice. This study discusses folksonomies a source of aesthetic judgments and whether those judgments can provide justification for knowledge organisation. Using Flickr photosharing service as an example, the folksonomies are examined as potential source of collective judgments of a larger group of people with a special focus on everyday life aesthetics. The study is based on a visual analysis of clusters of photographs formed by Flickr with a set of common aesthetic adjectives.
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M
  9. Spiteri, L.F.: Incorporating facets into social tagging applications : an analysis of current trends (2010) 0.00 
    0.004142815 = product of:
  0.012428444 = sum of:
    0.012428444 = product of:
      0.024856888 = sum of:
        0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024856888 = score(doc=3561,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    An increasingly difficult challenge in social tagging applications is negotiating the number of existing tags. This article examines the use of facets to facilitate the efficient organization and browsing of tags into manageable and distinct categories. Current and proposed methodologies for the application of facets in social tagging applications are evaluated. Results of this analysis indicate that these methodologies provide insufficient guidelines for the choice, evaluation, and maintenance of the facets. Suggestions are made to guide the design of a more rigorous methodology for the application of facets to social tagging applications.
  10. Mai, J.-E.: Folksonomies and the new order : authority in the digital disorder (2011) 0.00 
    0.004142815 = product of:
  0.012428444 = sum of:
    0.012428444 = product of:
      0.024856888 = sum of:
        0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024856888 = score(doc=4553,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    While the organization and representation of information and knowledge have historically been done by professionals, the rise of social media has spread the notion that this can be done more collaboratively. A more collaborative approach would entail a change in the role of professionals and in the goals and values of the systems. This paper explores the notion of authority and the role of professionals in a changing environment where more people participate in the organization and representation of information and knowledge. The paper questions the traditional role of the professionals and argues that systems must be designed to facilitate trust and authority, and that the authority of folksonomies and systems comes from the users' collective interpretations and meaning production.
  11. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.00 
    0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=828,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
  12. Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006) 0.00 
    0.0038202507 = product of:
  0.011460752 = sum of:
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=764,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.
  13. Yi, K.; Chan, L.M.: Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings : an exploratory study (2009) 0.00 
    0.003701243 = product of:
  0.011103729 = sum of:
    0.011103729 = product of:
      0.022207458 = sum of:
        0.022207458 = weight(_text_:of in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022207458 = score(doc=3616,freq=44.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3241498 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
                44.0 = termFreq=44.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.6, S.872-900
  14. Bullard, J.: Curated Folksonomies : three implementations of structure through human judgment (2018) 0.00 
    0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=5002,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Traditional knowledge organization approaches struggle to make large user-generated collections navigable, especially when these collections are quickly growing, in which currency is of particular concern, for which professional classification design is too costly. Many of these collections use folksonomies for labelling and organization as a low-cost but flawed knowledge organization approach. While several computational approaches offer ways to ameliorate the worst flaws of folksonomies, some user-generated collections have implemented a human judgment-centered alternative to produce structured folksonomies. An analysis of three such implementations reveals design differences within the space. This approach, termed "curated folksonomy," presents a new object of study for knowledge organization and represents one answer to the tension between scalability and the value of human judgment.
  15. Munk, T.B.; Moerk, K.: Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies : an empirical study (2007) 0.00 
    0.00355646 = product of:
  0.0106693795 = sum of:
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=1091,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The subject of this article is folksonomies on the Internet. One of the largest folksonomies on the Internet in terms of number of users and tagged websites is the computer program del.icio.us, where more than 100,000 people have tagged the websites that they and others find using their own keywords. How this is done in practice and the patterns to be found are the focus of this article. The empirical basis is the collection of 76,601 different keywords with a total frequency of 178,215 from 500 randomly chosen taggers on del.icio.us at the end of 2005. The keywords collected were then analyzed quantitatively statistically by uncovering their frequency and percentage distribution and through a statistical correspondence analysis in order to uncover possible patterns in the users' tags. Subsequently, a qualitative textual analysis of the tags was made in order to find out by analysis which tagging strategies are represented in the data material. This led to four conclusions. 1) the distribution of keywords follows classic power law; 2) distinct tagging communities are identifiable; 3) the most frequently used tags are situated on a general-specific axis; and 4) nine distinct tagging strategies are observed. These four conclusions are put into perspective collectively in respect of a number of more general and theoretical considerations concerning folksonomies and the classification systems of the future.
  16. Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006) 0.00 
    0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=620,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper explores the system of categories that is used to classify articles in Wikipedia. It is compared to collaborative tagging systems like del.icio.us and to hierarchical classification like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Specifics and commonalities of these systems of subject indexing are exposed. Analysis of structural and statistical properties (descriptors per record, records per descriptor, descriptor levels) shows that the category system of Wikimedia is a thesaurus that combines collaborative tagging and hierarchical subject indexing in a special way.
  17. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.00 
    0.0034169364 = product of:
  0.010250809 = sum of:
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=1265,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
    Footnote
    This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies & Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.
  18. Park, H.: ¬A conceptual framework to study folksonomic interaction (2011) 0.00 
    0.0034169364 = product of:
  0.010250809 = sum of:
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=4852,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a conceptual framework to recast a folksonomy as a Web classification and to use this to explore the ways in which people work with it in assessing, sharing, and navigating Web resources. The author uses information scent and foraging theory as a context to discuss how folksonomy is constructed through interactions among users, a folksonomic system, and a given domain that consists of a group of users who share the same interest or goals. The discussion centers on two dimensions of folksonomies: (1) folksonomy as a Web classification which puts like information together in a Web context; and (2) folksonomy as information scent which helps users to find related resources and users, and obtain desired information. This paper aims to integrate these two dimensions with a conceptual framework that addresses the structure of a folksonomy shaped by users' interactions. A proposed framework consists of three components of users' interactions with a folksonomy: (a) tagging - cognitive categorization of Web accessible resources by an individual user; (b) navigation - exploration and discovery of Web accessible resources in the folksonomic system; and (c) knowledge sharing - representation and communication of knowledge within a domain. This understanding will help us motivate possible future directions of research in folksonomy. This initial framework will frame a number of research questions and help lay the groundwork for future empirical research which focuses on qualitative analysis of a folksonomy and users' tagging behaviors.
  19. Peterson, E.: Parallel systems : the coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy (2008) 0.00 
    0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=251,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.
  20. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.00 
    0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=4647,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 37
  • d 1
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Types

Themes